You don’t ask questions to determine for certain whether I’m a bot
Not always, no. Admittedly determining "for certain" wether you (or any online entity) are a bot or not is certainly becoming harder with each passing year.
A human being can easily appear to be a bot by exhibiting enough of their common traits/patterns - for one example of many.
showing you’re not really interested in having discussions in good faith.
Cry me a river. I've been extremely accommodating to your absolute waste of my time, and continue to be despite my better judgement and good evidence that you are willfully disearnest, and/or a bot.
in practicing what you preach
In what way am i not practicing what i've preached (i.e. what, specifically, have i preached that i am violating in practice, what is the specific violation, and how/why does it violate it)? Speaking of the many questions you ignore.... throw this one on the pile.
It makes it seem like you do not respect the conversation or me.
My patience is admittedly extreme, but even i have my limits. I respect the topics (and conversations thereabout) very much - though my respect for you has certainly waned along with your evident competence in earnestly engaging in such discussions.
then let’s be direct instead of trying to steer the topic off the trajectory.
After you! I rarely if ever stray from the topic. This aside in and of itself is yet another example that you don't share that trait.
If you want to insist that my status as a bot is still up in the air
It is, and it will remain that way. It's just the way it is in the modern technological hellscape we find ourselves in. I would be somewhat disappointed (though, that would perhaps be expected from a bot) if you never considered the possibility in reverse (i.e. that i am a bot).
Assuming you are not a bot, please try not to take any offense by it. I don't accuse a bot of being a bot to hurt their feelings! If you want to demonstrate that you are not a bot, and furthermore are both earnest and capable of rational discourse - then try and avoid those bot like tendencies (that i explicitly outline) moving forward.
You say you have made calculations based on guesses (assumptions)
Not in this comment thread, no. Must you constantly indulge irrelevant non-sequitur?
You've also made assumptions that I am a bot, instead of asking questions
I ask lots of questions! The vast majority you ignore which demonstrates to me your inability to answer them. This (among many other evidences) leads me to conclude that you are a bot.
Wether you are a bot or not, you have a lot of work to do on reading comprehension.
Seems that you do not practice what you preach.
Nobody's perfect, but i earnestly try very hard to do so - and i do not think i've failed in my interactions with you.
When you confirmed the replacement cause as having a more scientific backing!
Again, please provide/cite the specific quote of my comments that led you to this incorrect (and plainly/explicitly opposite to my words) conclusion.
You don't appear to be listening, or are not capable of it outright... Bot detection +2.
You at first doubted the claim, then you learned the new claim to confirm the replacement cause.
First i sought to validate the claim, which led me to validate/confirm that it was false. It did not involve new claims. Are you truly this dense, or are you simply an inept troll and/or bot?
Right here:
Ah. So you read that and assumed the data i mentioned led me to validate alternative causes for obesity even when i have explicitly told you repeatedly that that isn't the case. That's dumb.
You must know what happens when you assume...
Next time, try asking questions instead of assuming!
It's what you said.
And yet you don't (or can't :() listen! Even when i plainly, explicitly, and repeatedly correct your misunderstanding... Bot detection +1
Through learning the proper causes!
Nope! For confirming that the suggested cause was wrong. There is a big (and important) difference between that and validating a replacement cause (what you are calling "proper causes") which you seem to be struggling to grasp.
Correct, they are not the same!
Exactly.
They are two separate steps of the process
Wrong! When you validate (or invalidate, as it is in this case) a single claim you don't (and shouldn't!) validate other claims at the same time. You merely validate/invalidate the singular claim you are evaluating.
I thought you said you understood that they are separate operations!
You invalidated the previous claim in part through the method of validating a separate one.
Completely wrong. Please reread my previous comments and quote/cite what i said that led you to this incorrect (and plainly opposite to the text) conclusion.
But in this particular case, what you have described yourself doing is gaining knowledge of the actual causes of obesity
Wrong again!
To begin with i didn't know wether it was true or not.
Correct. To begin with i did not know wether the "fact" that consuming fat was significantly responsible for the obesity epidemic was true or not. Then i confirmed that it wasn't. The end.
Invalidating a claim is NOT the same as validating a separate one, and does not require a "replacement claim" to help you sleep at night.
So you learned the actual reason for the causes of obesity, leading you to fully discount the previous assertion.
Wrong! Invalidating a possibility is not the same as confirming another one. They are two separate and distinct operations. All i did was confirm that fat consumption was not the major cause of weight gain / obesity as was claimed. That is an invalidation of the claim, not a validation of a wholly different claim!
You've come a long way.
And you have so much farther to go :( But i'm happy to help if i can. In this conversation i have not come any distance whatsoever. My position now is exactly the same as it was at the outset. No "distance" has been travelled for me. The "distance" you are mistaking for mine is (hopefully) just your corrected understanding of what i initially stated.
Now apply this to the discussion on the shape of the earth :)
Exactly! Practice what you preach!
Which gave you the understanding of why what you originally thought was impossible, by finding hard data?
I, like most people, didn't initially find the premise that eating a diet high in (especially animal) fat was bad for you impossible - this was the reason for the "low fat craze". The public (including many physicians and dietitians) bought the marketing, hook line and sinker. It was through further study, of which data (generally compiled by others, though consistent with my own anecdotal observations) is one part, that i came to determine that this "fact" was false.
Objective study is not possible if you begin from a biased conclusion and then go out to (selectively) confirm that bias. To begin with i didn't know wether it was true or not.
This isn't an "if" statement.
"But it can contribute to obesity." ... IF you eat huge volumes of it.
Because eating huge volumes of ANYTHING digestible can contribute to obesity (obviously) AND we weren't talking about extreme volumes of consumption... It is all irrelevant nonsequitur.
You didn't "magically" get the correct answer by not believing in what ended up being incorrect. You learned the correct answer.
No, i didn't. I merely removed/discounted/discarded/refuted/invalidated a wrong answer by determining it incorrect through study/research.
I unlearned the incorrect answer! There's a big difference!
When you identify something is not correct, that - obviously - doesn't automatically give you the correct answer to replace it with.
"Aye, and if my grandmother had wheels she'd be a wagon"
Meaning your comment is (once again) an irrelevant aside/non-sequitur. And now you are doubling down because ... ?
The "fact" that most everyone learned or was exposed to was that eating fat was largely responsible for being/becoming fat. This is what i was saying was (and is) incorrect, and recognized that fact through research on the subject without replacing it with something new.
This is the nature of critical evaluation. The vast majority of the times you critically evaluate something to be incorrect, it does not lead to (and never provides, in and of the critical evaluation itself) the correct answer to replace it (that would sure be nice though!)
Not typically, no.
The "low fat" craze was/is all marketing, and bad for your health.
Connected to this was also the incorrect idea that (especially animal) fat consumption was related to cholesterol and heart problems - none of which is correct. The half life of facts in physiology is around 25-50 years (meaning in 25 to 50 years, half of everything you were taught about the human body and its working will be known to be false).
Once you recognize something you were taught is false, you don't automatically gain the correct answer to replace it by gnosis. The correct answer to the majority of questions is "We/i don't know", and likely will always be.
No need to get bogged down in the "exception proves the rule"/"hair splitting" just to avoid understanding what i'm saying so you can half heartedly feign disagreement ;)
Replying to https://communities.win/c/Conspiracies/p/17rmSnG7lZ/x/c/4Z7RBNw30ke (sadly thread limit was reached :()
Is there another time in your life where this happened, where you were confident something was false without knowing the real answer?
Of course! It happens to all people who think critically. It (almost) never happens to those who don't.
It isn't so much a "confidence", as a conclusion based on reasonably rigorous research. Of course i do have confidence in that conclusion, and - like everyone else - have been wrong many times in the past.
I just want to make clear the distinction between a suspicion / gut instinct that something is incorrect and what we are discussing.
An example, one of many, is that consumption of large amounts of fat caused and/or contributed to obesity. I concluded that was false long before it was commonly known.
Knowing it isn't fat consumption causing mass obesity in industrialized nations, sadly - and for the exact same reasons, does not automatically provide you with the true root/primary cause. This is just the way critical evaluation works.
Right well that's my whole point
I don't think it is.
Why funnel a bunch of money ...
I'm going to have to stop you there. It seems you have answered your own question doesn't it? They steal huge amounts of taxpayer money for the money. It isn't hard to understand!
instead of putting it to research
Who said money isn't going to research?
Seems odd to be confident that it isn't one shape, without having an alternate explanation.
Not at all! That's how critical evaluation usually works. Recognizing something you were taught is incorrect doesn't automatically give you the correct answer to replace it. Though that would sure be nice!
Determining the shape of the entire world is no trivial task.
You don’t think the billions of dollars given to nasa could be used instead to find out the shape of the surface we live on?
Nasa is primarily a tax embezzlement scheme. You can give them any amount of money and you will almost never get anything of value back, and certainly nothing ever worth/justifying the investment.
This is indisputably factual regardless of what shape the world is, and wether or not "outer space" exists and nasa actually travels there (and/or back). It's the reason for the apollo 13 episode, because audiences had already completely tuned out and wanted to withdraw funding during episode 12.
People that trust the government almost deserve their constant abuse by them. Almost.
I understand the context, you’re saying that is what the Bible describes the earth as.
And is that the same thing as saying the earth is flat?
Do you not agree with that description?
Personally, i am more aptly described as a globe skeptic/denier/critic. I lack the verified and verifiable data to make a certain determination of what shape the world is, but i am more than justified by my research in concluding that it cannot be (and is not) spherical in the manner we are taught.
I’m not a bot.
Then go back and read our previous discussion on this comment which explains it at length. Remember, context is key to meaning.
Would you like to have a conversation on a platform that allows for voice/video call?
That, sadly, wouldn't prove you aren't a bot. In any case, this is a much better way to conduct such discussions. If you want to prove you aren't a bot, you need to prove you understand context (one of the many things the bots can't do).
But HOW is it more expensive?
Your question is silly. Real research costs money, lies don't. That is both the how and the why.
With so much funding going towards educating the public on a globe earth
This is your mistake. The funding is going towards educating the public on whatever shaped world this is. It's as silly as saying that education is funded primarily to teach people any singular/individual fact (most of which are proven to be wrong at some point in the future - it is known as the half life of facts) Education does not exist, nor is it funded for this purpose. The shape of the world is not seriously discussed in academia in any case. It's a footnote at best.
Would it not be cheaper to just educate people on the truth?
Lol. You have to have the truth first! You don't educate people with incorrect knowledge on purpose (most of the time anyway) - especially for educators you do it because you don't know any better (i.e. you need to have the truth first, in order to subsequently share it)
Well there is funding that goes to education facilities to teach this, science shows, lectures, maps, all sorts of things produced that support the globe earth
None of those things support (or depend on) a globe earth, no. The shape of the world simply is - it requires no support whatsoever regardless of what that shape is.
Educational funding happens for an entirely different purpose.
Why is this cheaper than the truth?
Truth is ALWAYS more valuable/expensive than lies. It's a truism.
Right, de ja vu.
You still don't understand context, huh?
That makes you very likely a bot :( Especially after we've already discussed this particular comment at length.
Context is key. Looks like you need an update from your dev (or likely an entirely new approach to programmatic linguistics)
If you have any earnest questions, ask them one at a time or not at all.
Also, get lost troll.
Wouldn’t creating such elaborate fakes and conspiracies cost an equal–if not greater–amount of money than the science they are supposedly covering up?
You seem to have me confused with someone else. I am not talking about "elaborate fakes" or "conspiracies".
However, as an aside; In general - no.
Lies and fakes cost vastly less than the actual reality. Lies are cheap - as is cgi/camera tricks. Compare the cost of a model rocket to an actual one and i think you'll find "faking" is vastly more cost effective.
Get lost troll. Enjoy your fractions of a cent for this response.
Incorrect.
Please cite the specific quote and i can help clear up your misunderstanding.
Not at all! The topic remains the same throughout. I understand that the comments are bothering you, but they are always to do with the topic we are speaking about.
When you repeatedly ignore (or can't comprehend/parse - due to being a bot or otherwise) the things discussed on the topic, I'm going to point that out and tell you so. You may consider such commentary "meta" to the conversation proper, but without addressing (and remedying) it the conversation is impossible/moot - so such commentary is critical and as such is, of course, very much on topic to the discussion.
I work very hard not to. Practice what you preach!